Twitter: KC provide blueprint on how to stop Eagles offense?

Take away the carries of 18, 30, and 41, and McCoy's got 18 for 70. Its that kind of inconsistency that kills drives, and against a read option, I would consider that stopping the run, especially when there were a bunch of carriers for nothing.

You're just pulling our legs here, right? First of all, it's 17 (not 18) for 70. That's better than 4 yards per carry, and that's AFTER taking away his 3 huge runs. And you're arguing that that's BAD? McCoy had two (2) runs for zero or negative yards. They came on consecutive 1st- and 2nd-down plays. Yeah, they failed to convert on that single drive. The Chiefs stopped the run once.

You're just pulling our legs here, right? First of all, it's 17 (not 18) for 70. That's better than 4 yards per carry, and that's AFTER taking away his 3 huge runs. And you're arguing that that's BAD? McCoy had two (2) runs for zero or negative yards. They came on consecutive 1st- and 2nd-down plays. Yeah, they failed to convert on that single drive. The Chiefs stopped the run once.

Im not saying the Eagles run game was bad or unproductive.

What Im saying is that the Chiefs did well enough to prevent the Eagles' run game from controlling the game overall. IMO, you have to judge how the read option is defended differently than you would judge how other run games are defended.

4 ypc against the read option from a spread offense with Vick at the helm is pretty good I'd say. When you have to defend the run with 7 guys, there are going to be a few big plays, and YPC is going to go up...

What Im saying is that the Chiefs did well enough to prevent the Eagles' run game from controlling the game overall. IMO, you have to judge how the read option is defended differently than you would judge how other run games are defended.

4 ypc against the read option from a spread offense with Vick at the helm is pretty good I'd say. When you have to defend the run with 7 guys, there are going to be a few big plays, and YPC is going to go up...

No, they didn't. Not even close. Turnovers cancelled out the fact that they couldn't stop the run. If they hadn't forced a TO (including a pick 6) then they lose the game AND give up even MORE rushing yards.

No, they didn't. Not even close. Turnovers cancelled out the fact that they couldn't stop the run. If they hadn't forced a TO (including a pick 6) then they lose the game AND give up even MORE rushing yards.

The eagles beat themselves more than anything.

Ok, then are you willing to agree that Eli and the Giants' passing attack controlled the Cowboys game, and the Giants beat themselves, making us, for all intensive purposes, an 0-2 team?

What Im saying is that the Chiefs did well enough to prevent the Eagles' run game from controlling the game overall. IMO, you have to judge how the read option is defended differently than you would judge how other run games are defended.

4 ypc against the read option from a spread offense with Vick at the helm is pretty good I'd say. When you have to defend the run with 7 guys, there are going to be a few big plays, and YPC is going to go up...

You're moving the goal posts now. You said: "He had a couple of big runs, but for the most part, the run game was shut down. The Eagles ended up in 2nd and third and long a lot b/c they failed to run the ball consistently. The Eagles did not end up in 2nd- and 3rd- and long because they failed to run consistently. I've shown that. You said that "they had a bunch of carries for nothing." They didn't. I've shown that. You said the Chiefs won by stopping the run. They didn't.

I have no idea how saying "the run game was shut down" doesn't count as saying it was "bad or unproductive." I'll wait to comment further until you show your work, as I have.

(And for the record: it's "intents and purposes," not "intensive purposes.")

You're moving the goal posts now. You said: "He had a couple of big runs, but for the most part, the run game was shut down. The Eagles ended up in 2nd and third and long a lot b/c they failed to run the ball consistently. The Eagles did not end up in 2nd- and 3rd- and long because they failed to run consistently. I've shown that. You said that "they had a bunch of carries for nothing." They didn't. I've shown that. You said the Chiefs won by stopping the run. They didn't.

I have no idea how saying "the run game was shut down" doesn't count as saying it was "bad or unproductive." I'll wait to comment further until you show your work, as I have.

(And for the record: it's "intents and purposes," not "intensive purposes.")

We just have different definitions of what shut down means. If you play Drew Brees and hold him to 290 yards, I would call that shutting him down. Its still a good productive game, but by his standards, thats shut down.

And also for the record, intents and purposes is the correct rule if you go to Oxford. Common vernacular is intensive purposes, and considering this is a Cowboys fan forum, and not an academic journal, its not incorrect. And if you're going to try to correct grammar, you should try to figure out how to set up quotes, because each time you referred to what I said has a grammatical error.

We just have different definitions of what shut down means. If you play Drew Brees and hold him to 290 yards, I would call that shutting him down. Its still a good productive game, but by his standards, thats shut down.

Holding Brees to 290 yards is in no way analogous to allowing McCoy and Vick to run for 250. What you're trying to argue is more comparable to saying that holding Brees to 400 yards is shutting him down.

And your explanation previously included a bunch of stuff about runs for nothing and bad runs putting them in 2nd-and-long, none of which actually happened. I'm still trying to understand how exactly the run game was shut down.

Holding Brees to 290 yards is in no way analogous to allowing McCoy and Vick to run for 250. What you're trying to argue is more comparable to saying that holding Brees to 400 yards is shutting him down.

Well, for one, I think you're too stuck with the numbers, but I don't really think that holding a spread read-option offense with two legit running threats in the backfield to 250 is the same as a guy throwing for 400. Not at all, so we just have a fundamental difference there.

And if you're going to try to correct grammar, you should try to figure out how to set up quotes, because each time you referred to what I said has a grammatical error.

I was correcting usage, not grammar. But you do have me curious (and unlike many, I do appreciate having my errors pointed out). What was wrong with my use of quotations? Obviously, I forgot an end-quote. But I don't see any other problems. Punctuation always inside the quotes: check. Punctuation not required when quoting fragments: check. Capitalize when the quote can stand as its own sentence, even when the quote is part of a larger sentence: check. Not seeing it.

I was correcting usage, not grammar. But you do have me curious (and unlike many, I do appreciate having my errors pointed out). What was wrong with my use of quotations? Obviously, I forgot an end-quote. But I don't see any other problems. Punctuation always inside the quotes: check. Punctuation not required when quoting fragments: check. Capitalize when the quote can stand as its own sentence, even when the quote is part of a larger sentence: check. Not seeing it.

I was correcting usage, not grammar. But you do have me curious (and unlike many, I do appreciate having my errors pointed out). What was wrong with my use of quotations? Obviously, I forgot an end-quote. But I don't see any other problems. Punctuation always inside the quotes: check. Punctuation not required when quoting fragments: check. Capitalize when the quote can stand as its own sentence, even when the quote is part of a larger sentence: check. Not seeing it.

Usage/syntax/whatever all falls under the grammar category.

If you use a colon before a quotation, it has to come in a new paragraph. You need a comma at the end of the first part of the third quote after down, and before "that" in the second quote.